Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for your contributions.
I've been following your changesets in Tooele, and I have a question and comments. First the question, what do these tags in the atspm namespace mean? I couldn't find them in the Wiki. Next the comments.

First, the Wiki page for connectivity relations (osm.wiki/Relation:connectivity#How_and_when_to_use_connectivity_relations) says that they should be used for more complex intersections, so I don't think they should be used for these simple intersections. At the very least, I've never seen them used before like this. They're really not necessary unless there's many intersections in quick succession.

Second, you've been adding a lot of duplicate stop light nodes. Please see highway=traffic_signals#How_to_map for some instructions on how to map them, but, as it says, ideally each stop light would be mapped exactly once. In a simple 4-way intersection, that can be the intersection node. Where some of the streets are split, stop light nodes can go on the stopping lines with the proper direction tag (forward/backward).

Third, you've been splitting ways at the stopping lines, and I can't figure out why. It'd be one thing if the tags were the same on each side of that split, but you've been setting them to different values, which isn't good intersection modeling. OSM tries to use a 1D data model in a 3D world, and there are some compromises we have to make because of it.

Fourth, turn lanes should only be tagged where there is a turn lane. You've been tagging them hundreds of feet in either direction. I think that you've gotten better at not doing that over time though.

Fifth, you've been using some older imagery. As I'm sure you know, this road has seen a lot of construction in the last few years, and lanes and layouts have changed. It's worth checking newer layers like Esri World Imagery or Maxar Premium to make sure the most up-to-date information possible is being saved.

Sorry if this feels like a lot. You have been doing quite a bit here, and I wanted to catch it so that your future edits can be the best they can be :)

As the Wiki says, they should be tagged according to what sort of building it is. The building tag reflects the original use, so purpose-built hotels should be tagged with building=hotel. Hotels that are repurposed from other things (like a church or a house), would have a building tag like building=church or building=detached. If you don't know the history of the building, then building=yes is totally fine.

Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for your contributions! I see that you've been adding a lot of ATV trails east of Monroe. That's all well and good, but you've been using tags like "grade" and "grades", when I think you've been meaning to use "tracktype". Please see tracktype=* for more information. In the editor that you're using, there's a drop-down box in the left sidebar that helps you select the track type. I already went through and cleaned up the ones you've created so far. Thanks again for helping improve the map near Monroe, and happy mapping!

Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for your contributions. I see that your operating procedure was finally changed so that multi-building businesses are finally modeled better, and I'm glad for that. I see that you are setting the building tag to "*" now. I'm guessing that someone gave you advice to tag buildings with building=*, and you took it literally. In technical spaces, the "*" character often means wildcard. What they meant was to use building=hotel, building=motel, building=commercial, or building=yes, depending on what is correct for that individual building. If you don't know or can't figure out what would be best, then building=yes is the most generic option.

Hi,
What is your source for this change? I went all around the nearby trails and up to the top of the hill, but I couldn't find any sign or map calling it this name that you changed it to.

Hi,
A business offering rental cabins is tagged with tourism=chalet, not tourism=hotel. Please see tourism=chalet for more information.

Hi,
It's not really accurate to apply the tags for The Hampton Inn & Suites entire building as the hotel only occupies a portion of it. There's also restaurants, a parking garage, and a bunch of condos here. All of the other business nodes along the building should have communicated that to you. Also, you moved the building so that it overlaps with the street. You seem to be tracing the roof of the building as it appears in the Bing aerial imagery instead of the base.

Hi,
I have a couple of comments about this edit. For one thing you put the entire address into the addr:city tag for some reason. Only the mailing city goes in that tag. Another is that the Westwind Cottages are much larger than the area that you drew. A business like this with multiple building should be represented either as a node or as an area drawn around the entire campus, not just one corner of it. Also, the area that you drew was had the shape and location of a building, but you didn't tag it as a building for some reason. I've seen Zartico mappers making these mistakes a lot. I think that you need to revise your processes.

Hi,
When a business has multiple buildings like this, it should be modeled as either an area around the entire developed portion of the lot or as a node. Please see tourism=hotel#How_to_map for more information.

Hi,
In this edit you clearly copied bad data from Bing Maps. You have already been told before that that is not permissible behavior, and yet you continue.

Hi,
In this edit, you created an object in the place of a building, but you forgot to tag it as a building. I've noticed that you Zartico mappers do that a lot, and I am recommending that you add the building tags where it is appropriate. Also, buildings, including this one, usually have right angles. The editor you are using has two ways to help you draw right angles on buildings. One way is to select the building and press the "q" button. The other is to right click the building and choose the option to square. I see that I reminded you of this back in May, but you seem to have forgotten by now. Please don't forget again.

Hi,
I reviewed this edit as you requested. The old roadbed is faint, and it is not a public highway, so I agree that track isn't the best tag for this. However, I found documents saying that snowmobiles use the roadway, and it did look that way when I visited the site. But I obviously can't be sure if it is used as a snowmobile trail this time of year, so I restored it with the abandoned:highway tag (which doesn't render most places but keeps the data around in case we need to give it standard tags). I'll check again in midwinter to see if there are snowmobile tracks leading into the roadway. Also, in this edit you deleted a rock wall, accidentally I hope, which I restored.

Hi,
I have some comments about this changeset. First, you changed spot B-19 in the Riverside Ranch RV Park back to a tourism=caravan_site. That tag is for the RV Park as a whole, and individual parking spots are tagged as tourism=camp_pitch. Please see tourism=caravan_site#Mapping_Facilities_Within_the_Site for more information. Secondly, this changeset spans two very distinct areas, one in the Sevier Valley and one in West Yellowstone. It's best practice to group changes geographically and submit before moving on to another area. Otherwise the changes look good. Thank you for your contributions!

Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for your contributions! I reviewed your edit, as you requested, and I think that it is good. I went ahead and fixed the formatting for the opening hours. Happy mapping :)

Hi,
I have some things to point out, and, since this is my fourth time contacting you, I'll keep it short. This property has two separate buildings on it. I know you were able to see this on the Bing imagery you used, and it's even more clear on the other available imagery layers. Also, you created some extra nodes on the northeast building for some reason or accidentally. And you haven't responded to SomeoneElse's question on the thread from the last time I had to contact you about your mapping practices.

Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for your contributions. I have some comments about this changeset and the others you did last night. When you added the bridge on SR 9 in Zion, you didn't leave any of the tags like name or ref. Another thing, you've been deleting a LOT of trails across the state, including some that I have walked myself. Is there a particular reason for doing that?

Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap, and thank you for your contributions! I noticed that you were using the tag "atspm:signal_id" to document the ID number of these stoplights in Riverdale. In OpenStreetMap, we use the "ref" key for ID numbers, including those on traffic signals, as documented at highway=traffic_signals#Traffic_signals_for_cars.

Relations are discouraged for hotels and motels. Please see tourism=hotel for more information. There were at least 4 hotel/motels in Utah with more than one building that you missed this morning that I went and fixed. You can tell when a hotel/motel has more than one building based on the shape of the parking lot, the architecture of the buildings, and street level imagery.

This wasn't actually a survey. I meant to type "aerial imagery" but somehow "survey" ended up in there.

Hi,
There are several things about this edit that I would like to point out. Firstly, you abbreviated the directions in the address. In OpenStreetMap, we do not abbreviate these. Secondly, you created an area the size and shape of a building, but you did not tag it as a building. Thirdly, The Blue Mountain Horsehead Inn is more than just this one building. It should either be mapped as a node or as an area encompassing the developed portion of the lot. Lastly, I already brought these points up to you before in changeset/107210454 and changeset/107210236.